Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: that the storage configuration is immutable through this tool, and the diagnostic meaning of the returned health state, which the structured fields cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the restriction, then the diagnostic use case. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition of the name/title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the fields an agent will get back and explains what the health flag implies. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; the only gap is not distinguishing it from the sibling storage_usage/verify tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, workspace_id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the reference to workspace://list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (returns the account's file storage) and enumerates the returned facts: provider type (S3 or Yandex.Disk), health, path template, file count. It is clear in isolation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very close siblings get_workspace_storage_usage and verify_workspace_storage, so an agent still has to guess at the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario ('needed when answer files don't open: the storage most often dropped and writes went to the platform disk') and a clear exclusion ('you cannot connect or disconnect storage via the assistant, that is done in the UI'). It stops short of naming the alternative tools (storage_usage / verify_storage) that would make the routing unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.